Displaying items by tag: Charles Helfenstein, The Making of The Living Daylightshttp://thedigitalbits.com
Mon, 19 Mar 2018 05:51:35 -0700en-gbThe Most Dangerous Bond. Ever.: Remembering “The Living Daylights” on its 30th Anniversaryhttp://thedigitalbits.com/columns/history-legacy-showmanship/living-daylights-30th
http://thedigitalbits.com/columns/history-legacy-showmanship/living-daylights-30th

“The Living Daylights was an admirable attempt to inject the series with renewed purpose and to ensure that it remained germane to moviegoers of the time.” — 007 historian Thomas A. Christie

The Digital Bits is pleased to present this retrospective commemorating the 30th anniversary of the release of The Living Daylights, the fifteenth (official) cinematic James Bond adventure and, most notably, the first to feature Timothy Dalton in the lead role and the last to feature a musical score by John Barry.

Thomas A. Christie is the author of The James Bond Movies of the 1980s (Crescent Moon, 2013). His other books include The Spectrum of Adventure: A Brief History of Interactive Fiction on the Sinclair ZX Spectrum (Extremis, 2016), Mel Brooks: Genius and Loving It! (Crescent Moon, 2015), Ferris Bueller’s Day Off: Pocket Movie Guide (Crescent Moon, 2010), John Hughes and Eighties Cinema: Teenage Hopes and American Dreams (Crescent Moon, 2009), and The Cinema of Richard Linklater (Crescent Moon, 2008). He is a member of The Royal Society of Literature, The Society of Authors and The Federation of Writers Scotland.

John Cork is the author (with Maryam d’Abo) of Bond Girls Are Forever: The Women of James Bond (Abrams, 2003) and (with Collin Stutz) James Bond Encyclopedia (DK, 2007) and (with Bruce Scivally) James Bond: The Legacy (Abrams, 2002). He is the president of Cloverland, a multi-media production company, producing documentaries and supplemental material for movies on DVD and Blu-ray, including material for Chariots of Fire, The Hustler, and numerous James Bond and Pink Panther titles. Cork also wrote the screenplay to The Long Walk Home (1990), starring Whoopi Goldberg and Sissy Spacek. He wrote and directed the feature documentary You Belong to Me: Sex, Race and Murder on the Suwannee River for producers Jude Hagin and Hillary Saltzman (daughter of original Bond producer, Harry Saltzman). He has recently contributed articles on the literary history of James Bond for ianfleming.com and The Book Collector.

Charles Helfenstein is the author of The Making of The Living Daylights (Spies, 2012). His other book is The Making of On Her Majesty’s Secret Service (Spies, 2009).

Lee Pfeiffer is the author (with Dave Worrall) of The Essential Bond: The Authorized Guide to the World of 007 (Boxtree, 1998/Harper Collins, 1999) and (with Philip Lisa) of The Incredible World of 007: An Authorized Celebration of James Bond (Citadel, 1992). He also wrote The Films of Sean Connery (Citadel, 2001) and (with Michael Lewis) The Films of Harrison Ford (Citadel, 2002). Lee was a producer on the Goldfinger and Thunderball Special Edition LaserDisc sets and is the founder (with Dave Worrall) and Editor-in-Chief of Cinema Retro magazine, which celebrates films of the 1960s and 1970s and is “the Essential Guide to Cult and Classic Movies.”

Bruce Scivally is the author (with John Cork) of James Bond: The Legacy (Abrams, 2002). His other books include Superman on Film, Television, Radio & Broadway (McFarland, 2006), Billion Dollar Batman: A History of the Caped Crusader on Film, Radio and Television from 10¢ Comic Book to Global Icon (Henry Gray, 2011), Booze, Bullets & Broads: The Story of Matt Helm, Superspy of the Mad Men Era (Henry Gray, 2013) and Dracula FAQ: All That’s Left to Know About the Count from Transylvania (Backbeat, 2015). As well, he has written and produced numerous documentaries and featurettes that have appeared as supplemental material on LaserDisc, DVD and Blu-ray Disc, including several of the Charlie Chan, James Bond, and Pink Panther releases. He is Vice President of New Dimension Media in Chicago, Illinois.

The interviews were conducted separately and have been edited into a “roundtable” conversation format.

And now that the participants have been introduced, might I suggest preparing a martini (shaken, not stirred, of course) and cueing up the soundtrack album to The Living Daylights, and then enjoy the conversation with these James Bond authorities.

Michael Coate (The Digital Bits): In what way is The Living Daylights worthy of celebration on its 30th anniversary?

Thomas A. Christie: When The Living Daylights first appeared in 1987 it marked the 25th anniversary of the James Bond movie series, and it was to symbolize an effort by Eon Productions to highlight the series’ continued relevance to global audiences. The world was presented with a new Bond, and a new take on the character which was to set a very different tone for the years ahead. Looking back at the film thirty years later, The Living Daylights was an admirable attempt to inject the series with renewed purpose and to ensure that it remained germane to moviegoers of the time. There is a perceptible sense that the creative team was determined to update Bond for the demands of an increasingly uncertain world, taking into account political shifts as well as socio-cultural changes, and the extravagant flamboyance of the previous decade’s entries in the series suddenly felt impossibly far-removed from the comparatively stark, back-to-basics approach that was being offered to audiences of the late eighties. The movie was not only to prove very entertaining, but also laid considerable groundwork for the franchise’s subsequent evolution throughout the coming decades.

John Cork:The Living Daylights was the beginning of the modern era of Bond films. It is the movie where the filmmakers and fans began to take 007 seriously again, where the spirit of Ian Fleming again became vital to the cinematic 007. It is a film that has an excellent mix of all the ingredients that make James Bond so popular. It features a great cast and some spectacular action and effects. It is also John Barry’s last Bond score, and it is a score that I absolutely love — elegant, romantic, sexy, and filled with spy-movie vibe. The movie is pure 1980s, but in the best way.

Charles Helfenstein: There is so much to celebrate — the locations are the right blend of British and exotic, the music is classic John Barry amplified by 80s synth-pop, the story rewards you for paying attention, there are beautiful damsels in distress, there are heart-stopping jump scares, thrilling stunts, and in the center of it all is Timothy Dalton: an intense, wolf-eyed, lithe, chain-smoking, ridiculously handsome James Bond who looks like he just stepped off the page of an Ian Fleming novel. Daylights (and Dalton) swung the pendulum back to seriousness and back to Bond’s literary source. The film brought also mystery back to the series, both with a complex plot and with an actor who was not a household name.

Lee Pfeiffer:The Living Daylights is often overlooked by fans in terms of its importance in revitalizing the Bond film franchise. While Roger Moore was extremely popular and successful, even he admitted that A View to a Kill was a pretty anemic finish to his tenure as Bond. That movie had reverted to many of the overtly slapstick elements that most hardcore Bond fans abhorred. The script was uninspiring and the film underperformed compared to expectations. There was real concern that Bond’s audience was starting to become indifferent. The casting of Timothy Dalton revitalized the series when it needed it most. The Living Daylights is not a classic Bond movie. The script was written generically so it wasn’t fine-tuned for Dalton’s persona. It also has two weak villains and a plot that meanders somewhat. However, Dalton brought back a sense of seriousness to the role of Bond that was welcomed by the fans. The ads played this up with up with tag lines like “Dalton…Dangerous.” He looked like he meant business and managed to infuse the character with some Fleming-esque characteristics that had largely disappeared over the years.

Bruce Scivally: The Living Daylights is worthy of celebration if for no other reason than being the first 007 film to star Timothy Dalton, whose brooding performance was a sharp departure from the lighter touch of his predecessor, Roger Moore. With a new star, the filmmakers took a newer approach, making a James Bond film that felt tougher and more Fleming-esque; for fans of the Connery Bonds, it was like a throwback to the days of From Russia With Love, when James Bond films were humorous without trying to be over-the-top funny, as, say, Octopussy had been. A trained theatrical actor, Dalton researched the role by reading Ian Fleming’s original novels and trying to embody Fleming’s 007 as best he could. The result was a 007 film closer than ever to the Bond of the novels — a chain-smoking, hard drinking assassin on the verge of burnout who did not suffer fools gladly.

Coate: Can you describe what it was like seeing The Living Daylights for the first time?

Christie: The Living Daylights felt like a breath of fresh air after a period of stylistic uncertainty in the Bond franchise. Following the larger-than-life world domination scenarios of the late seventies Bond movies, the production team — and director John Glen, in particular — seemed determined to pull the series back towards the Cold War thriller scenarios of its glory days. With films such as For Your Eyes Only and Octopussy, there was a noticeable effort to tone down elements of the fantastic that had permeated big-budget efforts such as The Spy Who Loved Me and Moonraker, reintroducing some much-needed realism (or as close as a Bond movie ever really gets to realism) into the mix. But the late Sir Roger Moore had never seemed entirely comfortable with this attempt to return Bond to his literary roots as a battle-hardened and sometimes cynical figure who has been profoundly, and adversely, affected by his experiences in the intelligence community. Suddenly, with the arrival of Timothy Dalton, the mission to divert the course of the Bond series along a darker, slightly grittier trajectory seemed to have been kicked into top gear. Moore’s increasingly avuncular, seemingly-indestructible Bond was now gone, and in his place was a leaner, younger, more dangerous figure who reintroduced a much-needed element of unpredictability to the franchise. Everyone seemed to be upping their game, from Glen in the director’s chair to veteran screenwriters Richard Maibaum and Michael G. Wilson, and the comparison to the movie’s immediate predecessor — the lackluster, oft-maligned A View to a Kill — could not have been more striking.

Cork: One may not understand the pent-up anticipation for Daylights. A View to a Kill and Never Say Never Again had tested the resolve of many adult Bond fans. I forget the machinations, but Bruce Scivally and I went to see The Living Daylights at a press screening in Los Angeles. My initial reaction was disappointment. I wanted the film to sweep me away, deliver everything I had been missing from the later Moore films. I recalled to Bruce the old joke about the very religious but racist sexist man who has a heart attack and flat lines. He’s resuscitated by paramedics and has this shocked look on his face. His family asks what happened. “I went to heaven. I, I, I saw God, and she’s black!” I felt like him. I had gotten everything I wanted, a more serious Bond film with lots of Fleming elements, but somehow I didn’t connect to it on that first viewing. That said, I saw it probably ten times in the movie theater and listened to the score for hour after hour that summer.

Helfenstein:Daylights benefited from two publicity hooks: the debut of a new actor and the 25th anniversary of James Bond in the cinema. So there was a great deal of interest, a great deal of coverage. I remember repeatedly watching the trailer and the brief preview included in Happy Anniversary 007. The Gibraltar stunts had my jaw on the floor. My brother and I went to the first day, first showing. We loved the film but were a bit confused by the complex plot, and went back for a second showing and everything made more sense. Seeing it in the theater was a treat. It’s the film that turned me from a casual Bond fan into a super fan. That summer I also saw the film in Maine, Scotland, and Greece — it was a Daylights world tour of sorts.

Pfeiffer: I saw the film at advance critics’ screening in New York City. I was extremely happy with the end result and relieved that a more serious approach to the Bond character had been taken. The overall reaction was very positive. I think everyone realized that the series was in danger of running out of steam and becoming too predictable. Daylights put Bond back into more realistic situations that reflected the changing tastes of modern action movie audiences. It must be said, however, that the movie went against Cubby Broccoli’s philosophy of embroiling Bond in contemporary political situations. When you look at the movie today, it’s a bit cringe-inducing to realize that the Afghan “freedom fighters” who Bond sides with against the Soviets would eventually morph into the Taliban and other terrorist groups that adamantly opposed the West.

Scivally: I first saw The Living Daylights, if memory serves, at a pre-release BAFTA screening in Los Angeles. The pre-credits sequence, I felt, was adequate, but not up to the standard set by the amazing stunts in the pre-credits of The Spy Who Loved Me or Moonraker (back when stuntmen actually risked their lives to create those amazing scenes). The Bratislava sequence, I thought, had a more authentically Fleming feel than perhaps any other 007 film... and by the time the film was over, I wasn’t sure that was a good thing. Books and movies are different animals, and changes are often made to book characters to make them more palatable for a film audience. Like the Bond of the books, Dalton’s 007 is relatively humorless, and the film is, in some ways, a less entertaining Bond film because of it. While, at the time, I did appreciate that Dalton was pushing Bond in a more serious direction, with the passage of time — and repeated viewings — I see that more as a liability than a plus.

Coate: Can you compare and contrast Timothy Dalton’s inaugural performance as Agent 007 with that of the other actors who have portrayed the character?

Christie: Dalton was famously an admirer of Ian Fleming’s fiction, and he is known to have studied the original Bond novels and short fiction closely when preparing to take on the part. Thus Dalton’s Bond was much more of a reluctant hero in comparison to Roger Moore’s incarnation, and there was an undeniable influence of the Fleming Bond in the way that the veteran agent was not always comfortable with carrying out his orders. Though he hits the ground running, thanks in no small part to a pre-credits sequence that hurls him straight into the thick of the action, it is interesting to see how Dalton’s take on the character quickly establishes itself as no-nonsense, slightly jaded, and considerably more contemplative than many of his predecessors. Whereas Sean Connery’s Bond appeared as more or less a fully-formed character from the earliest scenes of Dr. No, and George Lazenby faced the challenge of establishing himself as a successor while putting his own stamp on 007 in On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, Moore had a much more stately introduction to the Bond role in Live and Let Die, easing himself into the character rather more gradually. But Dalton appeared determined to waste no time in establishing his troubled, world-weary take on Bond and — though he often seemed less than comfortable with the film’s sparing moments of light-heartedness and occasional punning witticisms — he performs with great confidence and lends this brooding, discontented figure a laudable depth of character throughout.

Cork: Dalton is a great actor. I’ve met him very briefly on a couple of occasions and he fills up the room with his charm. He was in a very tough position following Moore, who made the role his own. Like Moore, he had the same director as the previous Bond’s last film. (Guy Hamilton directed Connery in Diamonds Are Forever, then Moore’s first Bond, just as John Glen directed Moore’s last Bond film then Dalton.) I’m not sure this was the best circumstance for either actor because in both cases I think the director was quite naturally making a comparison. Also, Dalton had absolutely no prep time, no ability to rehearse and live in the part. Considering this, he gives an amazing performance. It just doesn’t quite feel like Bond to me. He laughs too easily and is too quick to play the line rather than play against the line. Connery, for example, would take an angry line and give it a very light touch. Note how Connery never breaks a sweat in the dinner with Dr. No, never talks through gritted teeth. Dalton to me runs a little too hot and cold, but rarely finds that perfectly cool center. And the thing is, meet him in person, he’s got that in spades. One of the finest scenes in any Bond film is when Dalton’s Bond goes to murder General Puskin. That’s where you can see Dalton’s amazing skill. He’s working with another actor (the brilliant John Rhys-Davies) and the tone is just perfect. There isn’t a flaw in that scene. But then Bond’s soon lumbering through the rooftop chase which was originally scripted as a comic action set-piece, and there was no way Dalton could hold that perfect tone in a script that didn’t embrace it.

Helfenstein: Dalton had the shortest preparation time of any of the Bond actors between when he was signed and when he started filming. But he was a fan of the novels and wanted to return the character to Fleming’s literary roots. Looks wise, Dalton was perfect. Rolling Stone magazine said he looked like he was genetically engineered for the role. He conveyed anger perfectly, did a great job with the love scenes and stunts, and his voice was like steel wrapped in silk. His theatrical-influenced delivery could have been toned down a bit in some scenes (“To drop a BOMB!”). Unfortunately his humor fell a bit flat, though I doubt even Roger Moore could have made a line like “Salt corrosion” uproariously hilarious. Dalton had been on Eon’s radar for a long time and his fantastic debut proved that those instincts were right.

Pfeiffer: I was always very admiring of Roger Moore’s interpretation of Bond, which was incomparable. But even he knew the producers had to bring some new energy and variations to the character. Dalton was the antithesis of Moore’s characterization of 007. He wasn’t comfortable tossing out bon mots and in some cases the insistence that he do so looked rather strained. Instead, he played the part as a deadly, sober and serious character and the result brought plenty of new energy to the franchise. Dalton reverted the character back to the earliest days of the films in which Sean Connery played the part essentially in a serious manner, with a few quips tossed out periodically. That’s the style in which George Lazenby portrayed Bond in his one and only outing as 007. Roger Moore realized he could not emulate Connery and successfully brought his own unique interpretation to the role. Since Moore was a very funny man in real life, he brought those attributes to his performances as Bond and it worked well. However, just as Moore couldn’t imitate Connery, Dalton wisely sought not to imitate Moore. He created the role anew by bringing in his own, more serious interpretation of the role.

Scivally: The great tragedy to me is that Dalton did not get a third chance to play 007. If one looks at Connery’s films, he seems a bit insecure, rushing his dialogue in Dr. No, and is getting the hang of the role with From Russia With Love, but it’s not really until Goldfinger — his third film — that he truly owns the role, bringing a swaggering confidence to every minute of his screen time. Similarly, after a couple of films where Roger Moore was rather awkwardly trying to fit his 007 into a Sean Connery mold, he was finally allowed to be more of himself with his third outing, The Spy Who Loved Me, creating a lighter Bond persona that kept the series alive into the 1980s. Especially given that the series was more or less re-booted with GoldenEye — a film that had a much larger budget than Licence to Kill, and benefited from a new director and fresh writers — it would have been interesting to see how a third Timothy Dalton film would have turned out. I like to think that under the guidance of a director like Martin Campbell, his rough edges would have been smoothed and he would have delivered one of the best Bond performances.

Coate: In what way was Joe Don Baker’s Brad Whitaker (or Jeroen Krabbe’s General Koskov) an effective or memorable villain?

Christie: There was a degree of novelty in the way that The Living Daylights established dual antagonists in the form of unstable arms dealer Whitaker and the scheming, underhand Russian defector Koskov. It is rather interesting to contrast Koskov with Steven Berkoff’s General Orlov in Octopussy. Whereas Orlov had been the very acme of hardline Soviet zealotry, obsessed with gaining an upper hand in the Cold War at any cost, Koskov proved to be a refreshing change — his motivation was monetary greed, pure and simple. By the late 1980s, the temperature of the Cold War had changed a great deal as a result of Mikhail Gorbachev’s policies of Glasnost and Perestroika, and Koskov was a product of this newly-emerging world; content to play both superpowers against each other for his own personal gain, he was charismatic and callous in equal measure. While seeming the epitome of charm on the surface, his elaborate plotting puts his girlfriend at direct risk of lethal harm and almost leads to the execution of his KGB superior, John Rhys-Davies’s Leonid Pushkin. Thus in his calculating treachery, Koskov was far removed from the grandiose, ranting supervillains of years past, and his urbane duplicity was surprisingly well balanced by the pugnacious Whitaker. Obsessed with military history and glorifying warfare while singularly lacking any real experience of armed combat, Whitaker could have seemed like a buffoonish fantasist in lesser hands. But Joe Don Baker brings a low-key bloodlust to this deluded sociopath, laying bare his twisted view of the world and the wanton savagery which bubbles under his veneer of forced geniality.

Cork: I never felt a threat from Whitaker or Koskov. Their plot was a twist on the Iran-Contra affair (illegal arms sales profits used to finance a secret operation), but it is more complex than Rube Goldberg’s self-buttering toaster. But here’s the thing, I love both actors. Baker is always fun to watch. I keep trying to get my son to re-watch Walking Tall with me.

Joe Don Baker story: When he was leaving Morocco, a female crew member (who shall remain unnamed) took him to the airport. This was back when you could walk someone to the gate. This is a liberal Islamic country, but it is an Islamic country. Joe Don Baker turned to her just before he got on the plane and said, I got you a present, and he hands her a brown paper bag. She thanks him and walks away. Then she looks in the bag. It’s filled with porn magazines and maybe a couple of other things that are not quite legal in Morocco! She quickly threw away the bag. But when you see how bigger than life Joe Don Baker can be on screen, well, he’s lived a life that is pretty big, too.

Jeroen Krabbe is a very different character entirely. He does a great job playing someone who does not seem villainous at all, then has a great turn at the end where that darkness comes out. He’s, of course, a very talented visual artist and a lovely man. I really enjoy his performance. I do wish that both characters had been given the chance to have a villainous moment that gave them the chance to really turn on what makes them so watchable. That was something missing in the script for me.

Helfenstein: In some ways Whitaker and Koskov are the Laurel and Hardy of Bond villains. Neither are terribly menacing. While he’s a scoundrel, Jeroen Krabbe’s Koskov is almost too likeable and charming to be a Bond villain. Joe Don Baker’s Whitaker was a bit too much like a cartoon. Playing with toy soldiers and ripping the claws off of lobsters isn’t threatening enough to make any impact. But Baker was a favorite of Barbara Broccoli’s, and so he was brought back as Wade for the Brosnan era.

Pfeiffer: One of the negative aspects of Daylights is that it lacks a good, strong central villain. Brad Whitaker is an uninspired, smaller-than-life character with none of the grandiose schemes we associate with the more memorable Bond baddies. He’s more like a villain from a “B” spy movie from the 1960s and Joe Don Baker is miscast in the role. Similarly, the character of General Koskov is also a bit of a dud. Not helping matters is that Jerome Krabbe sometimes goes “over-the-top” in his performance. The weak villains reflect perhaps the most unsatisfying aspect of the movie.

Scivally: Who’s the villain of this movie again? Is it Georgi Koskov, or Brad Whitaker? Whittaker doesn’t even show up until a third of the way in, but it’s he who has the final show-down with 007; by that point, Koskov has become a comic character sent away by Pushkin with a quip and a nod and a couple of manhandling bodyguards. Then there’s Necros, the Ivan Drago-like henchman portrayed by Andreas Wisniewski. Wisniewski was formerly a ballet dancer, and it shows; he moves with panther-like grace, and proves to be a lethal killer. It’s a pity that the best hand-to-hand fight scene in the film involves him with an agent other than 007, at the Blayden Safe House; when he and Bond finally square off at the climax, what we get is a terrific stunt scene, but one that lacks the punch, so to speak, of the Blayden fight.

Coate: In what way was Maryam d’Abo’s Kara Milovy an effective or memorable Bond Girl?

Christie: What made Maryam d’Abo stand out as Kara Milovy is her relatability. She is a sympathetic and likeable character who has been unwittingly drawn into a clandestine world of spies and double-dealing simply because she happened to fall in love with the wrong individual. Kara is a fish out of water in many respects, and just as it is a pleasure to witness her wide-eyed enthusiasm as she emerges into the West after having spent her life behind the Iron Curtain in the oppressively authoritarian Eastern Bloc, similarly we feel for her as she slowly begins to realize the full extent of her former lover Koskov’s betrayal. As a classical musician by profession, she lacks the highly-specialized skillset required to endure for long in the shadowy world of espionage, and yet time and again she proves herself to be highly intelligent, resourceful, and above all independent. For all these reasons, it is easy to warm to Kara, and d’Abo brings a guileless appeal to the character while also emphasizing her autonomy, practicality and individuality — qualities which not only aid in her survival, but also make her ideally matched to Dalton’s more thoughtful, meditative take on Bond.

Cork: Having written a book with Maryam, I’m completely biased. I thought she gave a fantastic performance in the film when I first saw it. I don’t mind the idea of ”the woman is Bond’s equal” but I strongly prefer that the woman be a complement to 007 with her own competing interests and goals, not a mirror. Kara is that. She’s talented, smart, and where Bond has to be emotionally unattached, her weakness is her desire to be in love. I really found myself rooting for her in the film, which is rare in a Bond film. But I cared what happened to her, and I give all the credit for that to Maryam for infusing Kara with humanity.

Helfenstein: Producer Michael G Wilson said they needed “an innocent pawn with a classical face” and Maryam d’Abo fit the bill perfectly. A poor Czech girl living in a crappy apartment is a far cry from the glamorous world of James Bond, and so when she gets whisked into to Bond’s orbit, her wide-eyed innocence helps reinforce the contrast and reminds us of how cool Bond is. Critics made light of the fact that the film features a woman who is more interested in getting a Stradivarius between her legs than she is with Bond, but it was fun to see a Bond girl with a world-class musical skill. Her romance with Bond is quite believable. She doesn’t just throw herself at him — Dalton’s Bond has to work for it, getting her to trust him, extracting information, and finally sealing the deal. Then she betrays him, and then switches sides again. Daylights certainly has a lot of double-crossing!

Pfeiffer: Maryam d’Abo gave a fine performance as Kara Milovy. She was more in line with the contemporary view of women, thus we don’t have a voluptuous actress cast in the role. Kara’s main appeal is her intelligence and her courage. It should be noted that the script also caters to a more contemporary attitude towards sex in the era of the AIDS horror. Bond has an adult, meaningful relationship with one woman, Kara (if you excuse his dalliance with the rich woman in the film’s amusing pre-credits sequence).

Scivally: Maryam d’Abo is a lovely actress, more waifish, perhaps, than the usual “Bond Woman,” and in the beginning of the film seems poised to be — like Barbara Bach’s Anya Amasova in The Spy Who Loved Me — an equal to Bond. But of course she’s not a real assassin, but rather a dupe in an elaborate scheme that takes a Venn diagram to figure out (like Octopussy, one of the failings of The Living Daylights is that it is confusingly over-plotted), and in the fight scene in the Afghan jail, all she does is stand there with her hands at her sides, totally useless... as she proves to be for the remainder of the film. In the end, she is the farthest thing possible from an equal to Bond; she’s naive, clueless, and mostly just a pretty decoration. But she does play a pretty mean cello.

Coate: Where do you think The Living Daylights ranks among the James Bond movie series?

Christie: There is no doubt that The Living Daylights is a divisive movie amongst fans. For everyone who admires its attempts to drag Bond into the political realities of the eighties with its complex plot dynamics and moodier tone, there are others who lament its comparative lack of humor and Dalton’s straight-faced determination to play the character as a more somber, introspective intelligence operative who is not immune from self-doubt. Considered in isolation, the film was well-received by many critics at the time on account of its tense, intricate storyline and the obvious effort that had been taken to keep the series relevant in the fast-changing geopolitical climate of the late 1980s. The movie represented a particular point in the franchise where the creative team were determined to energetically steer both the style and content of the Bond films in a striking new direction, and Dalton’s more agile, saturnine approach to the protagonist — which would be more fully developed in 1989’s Licence to Kill — arguably helped to lay the groundwork for Daniel Craig’s uncompromising portrayal of the character in the twenty-first century, in all his unflinching drive and grim determination.

Cork: To me, the script for Daylights is the weakest link. So much is so good, but the whole never quite comes together for me. I can watch it easily, but I never list it among my favorites. It is one where there are whole scenes where I am fine to go wandering around the house, where the story just seems to go nowhere. Great scenes get little moments that kill them for me. Are there really Soviet soldiers who are showering during a battle on their airbase? They couldn’t hear the explosions? The gunfire? So a great battle gets interrupted by a cheap joke, but a joke that doesn’t make sense in the context of the scene. This happens over and over. But there are moments where the film just soars: the extended Aston Martin chase that ends with the cello case sled scene, a moment that in the script I thought would be beyond idiotic, but that I love in the film (and that all goes to John Glen who dreamed it up and got the tone just right). But as an overall film, when ranked the Bonds with my son in 2012, it landed at #17. I feel like it should be higher, but that was my ranking then.

Helfenstein: It’s my second favorite Bond film, though I know I am in the extreme minority ranking it that high. The film has some big deficiencies: an overly complex plot, weak villains, some wooden acting from the lesser players, etc. But Daylights has a tremendous amount of positives going for it: a glorious return to the work of Ian Fleming, an incredible soundtrack (John Barry leaving the series on a high note), a playful and sweet romance, great stunts, an astonishing pre-title sequence, and a commanding, era-defining, note-perfect performance from Timothy Dalton.

Pfeiffer: I would rank Daylights in the middle of the pack. I think it’s more satisfying than The Man with the Golden Gun, Moonraker, A View to a Kill, Diamonds are Forever, Quantum of Solace and all of the Pierce Brosnan movies, though I thought Pierce made an excellent Bond. There are some dated aspects to it in terms of the political tone but it boasts some incredible stunt work, especially that fight scene with Bond and the baddie dangling out of a cargo plane. There’s also a fine score by John Barry and a good title theme song. I’m among the few who believe that Licence to Kill, Dalton’s second and final outing as Bond, was far superior to Daylights because the script was written expressly for him and had a very strong villain in Sanchez, played by Robert Davi.

Scivally: Of the two Dalton films, The Living Daylights is my favorite, because it seems more “Bond-ish” to me, with a more globe-trotting feel, a tricked-out Aston Martin, and a Bond who hasn’t “gone rogue.” Not to mention a superb John Barry score. (Sadly, his final one for the Bond series.) I’d put it somewhere in the top half of the bottom 10.

Coate: What is the legacy of The Living Daylights?

Christie: The Living Daylights brought the Bond franchise bang up to date at an interesting period in its history. Arguably the apex of John Glen and Albert “Cubby” Broccoli’s attempts to bring Bond back into the realms of dramatic credibility, the series felt as though it had re-entered the territory of the spy thriller with a vengeance. The movie marked an occasion where the Bond cinematic cycle was re-evaluated and rejuvenated — a phenomenon which would occur again, in different ways, with GoldenEye and Casino Royale some years later. With the Cold War influences which had shaped earlier entries in the series now starting to wane and an uncertain global political environment beginning to emerge, Eon Productions knew that the Bond movies had to change, and The Living Daylights was perhaps the most noteworthy example of the franchise beginning to come to terms with this shift in world affairs. Although Dalton’s short tenure in the role means that the movie is often considered in tandem with its immediate successor, Licence to Kill, there are many who felt that the latter feature’s revenge-themed storyline was to drift too far from the Bond structural formula that had made the series such an enduring success. But with The Living Daylights, we have what might well be considered the ultimate 1980s take on James Bond — political intrigue, erudite characters, changing geopolitical realities, cutting-edge gadgetry, and one of the most sophisticated and engrossing storylines in the series until that point.

Cork: I think this is John Glen’s best directing effort. But the legacy to me was that this is the film where Michael G. Wilson really became the leading force for the cinematic 007. Cubby Broccoli was still deeply involved, but Michael was much more involved in the daily production, the creative choices, the final film, and from those I’ve spoken to, while Cubby always had the last word, his trust in Michael, and Michael’s great energy, even temperament, and respect for Cubby allowed him to be making most of the decisions. Cubby did a brilliant job of positioning both his daughter Barbara and his step-son Michael to continue to lead the Bond franchise. While the complicated plot of the film gets in the way of some of the great acting and action in the movie, this film helped keep Bond relevant and brought him back to reality much more than For Your Eyes Only (which is given much more credit in that regard). One could see Daniel Craig in a remake of this film more so than any other Bond film. This film is also the legacy of a man only a few have ever heard of in relation to this movie: Baron Enrico di Portanova. Bond fans know the name because it is his house in Acapulco that is seen in the next Bond film, Licence to Kill. But this film would not exist without ”Ricky.” He was instrumental in making a film designed to support the Mujahideen’s fight against the Soviets. That film put Cubby and Michael on the track to have Bond get embroiled in the Soviet battle to maintain control of Afghanistan. Considering the sweeping geopolitical changes in the nation in the past three decades, the film seems strangely ironic. Where would Kamran Shah, the Mujahideen leader, be today? Would he have been a moderate who wanted peace with the West, or would he have celebrated 9/11? Would he be supporting ISIS? The idea that high-level Russians would be coming to the West to manipulate entire nations for their benefit seemed outdated not too long after the film came out, but today? I wouldn’t be surprised if The New York Times soon identified another General Koskov-like character as an attendee at a meeting with Donald Trump Jr. It is by far the most overtly political Bond film, and the one that with Octopussy delves most deeply into the Cold War politics of the moment. It’s a film that has a lot going for it, a great watch for a rainy afternoon, and even greater if you start dissecting the politics behind it.

Helfenstein:The Living Daylights is so much more than just a course correction from the Roger Moore era. It is so much more than just the 25th anniversary film. It is so much more than just Timothy Dalton’s debut as Bond. It is a throwback to Bond’s cold war thriller roots. It is John Barry’s final bow. It is pure, classic Bond: he’s fighting the Russians, romancing a blonde, driving a rocket-powered Aston Martin, parachuting in and out of danger, and doing everything with a panache that only 007 can achieve. Its legacy proved that a fourth man could succeed at playing Bond, and make an indelible mark on the series. Underappreciated by the general public, but celebrated by serious fans, it’s everything we love about James Bond.

Pfeiffer: The legacy of The Living Daylights is that its legacy should be stronger. The two Dalton films are often overlooked in critical discussions of the series. In a way, Dalton never really had his chance. The release of Licence to Kill had been botched by UA in the United States and the series then went on a six-year hiatus due to legal disputes with the studio. By the time Bond was ready to come back, it was time to reinvigorate the role again with Pierce Brosnan, who, as most Bond fans know, had originally been slated to play 007 in The Living Daylights. I think Timothy Dalton never quite got the praise he deserves for helping to revitalize the series.

Scivally: At the time of its release, The Living Daylights was viewed — in its way — as a commentary on the AIDS epidemic; much was made of there being only one “Bond girl” in the film, though I never understood how everyone could overlook the obviously sex-starved woman on the boat in the pre-credits; what do they think Bond was doing with her for nearly two hours? It’s also significant for Timothy Dalton’s introduction as 007. Dalton is a fine actor who brought a much-welcomed harder edge to James Bond, but to me his 007 has always been lacking, and what he lacks most is charm. Dalton himself can be quite charming, and has been in other roles, but as James Bond, he seemed more apt to skewer you with a steak knife than with a sharp witty riposte. He is, to me, “the angry Bond,” the one who always seems just one mission away from intensive psychiatric therapy or a very, very long respite at Shrublands. There is a reason the teaser posters for The Living Daylights promised “The Most Dangerous Bond... Ever!” Audiences at the time were not ready for such a grim 007, and reaction to Dalton was unenthusiastic. As a result, it would be almost 20 years before a Dalton-style Bond would be seen again, this time to much acclaim, in Casino Royale.

Coate: Thank you — Tom, John, Charles, Lee and Bruce — for participating and sharing your thoughts about The Living Daylights on the occasion of its 30th anniversary.

The James Bond roundtable discussion will return in Remembering “Dr. No” on its 55th Anniversary.

Let us continue the James Bond 50th anniversary celebration, shall we? Last autumn, around the time Skyfall was being released to theaters, the Blu-ray set was hitting retailers and the anniversary hype was in high gear, I had this idea that it might be interesting if I could round up a few of my James Bond historian friends, turn on a recorder… and talk James Bond, and then perhaps turn that into an article. It didn’t happen (primarily for logistical reasons). But a few months later the next best thing did happen. That is, separately-conducted interviews that have been edited into a round-table format.

In the information age it seems everyone is an expert. There are millions of fans of the James Bond movie series and quite a few of them no doubt are an expert on all matters related to the series. In my view, though, the real experts – the best of the best – are the ones that have taken their passion and knowledge of all things James Bond to the next level and have succeeded in writing books on the subject (and in some cases producing documentary films). As such, I thought it would be an interesting experiment to ask a handful of these experts the same set of questions pertaining to the subject of the James Bond movies and why the series has endured. Interviewed for this article were Jon Burlingame, John Cork, Bill Desowitz, Paul Duncan, Charles Helfenstein, Mark O’Connell, Lee Pfeiffer, Steven Jay Rubin, Bruce Scivally and Dave Worrall.

First, some introductions that establish the credentials of the participants.

Jon Burlingame is the author of The Music of James Bond (Oxford University Press, 2012). He also authored Sound and Vision: 60 Years of Motion Picture Soundtracks (Watson-Guptill, 2000) and TV’s Biggest Hits: The Story of Television Themes From Dragnet to Friends (Schirmer, 1996). He writes regularly for the show-biz trade Variety and has also been published in The Hollywood Reporter, Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, and The Washington Post. He started writing about spy music for the 1970s fanzine File Forty and has since produced seven CDs of original music from The Man from U.N.C.L.E. for the Film Score Monthly label.

John Cork is the author (with Bruce Scivally) of James Bond: The Legacy (Abrams, 2002). He also wrote (with Maryam d’Abo) Bond Girls Are Forever: The Women of James Bond (Abrams, 2003) and (with Collin Stutz) James Bond Encyclopedia (DK, 2007). He is the president of Cloverland, a multi-media production company, producing documentaries and supplemental material for movies on DVD and Blu-ray, including material for Chariots of Fire, The Commancheros, The Hustler, and many of the James Bond titles. Cork also wrote the screenplay to The Long Walk Home (1990), starring Whoopi Goldberg and Sissy Spacek.

Bill Desowitz authored James Bond Unmasked (Spies, 2012). He is the owner of Immersed in Movies (www.billdesowitz.com), a contributor to Thompson on Hollywood at Indiewire and contributing editor of Animation Scoop at Indiewire. He has also contributed to the Los Angeles Times and USA Today.

Paul Duncan is the editor of The James Bond Archives (Taschen, 2012). He has edited over fifty film books for Taschen, and is currently preparing The Charlie Chaplin Archives for release in 2014.

Charles Helfenstein is the author of The Making of On Her Majesty’s Secret Service (Spies, 2009) and The Making of The Living Daylights (Spies, 2012).

Mark O’Connell is the author of Catching Bullets: Memoirs of a Bond Fan (Splendid Books, 2012).

Lee Pfeiffer is the author (with Philip Lisa) of The Incredible World of 007: An Authorized Celebration of James Bond (Citadel, 1992) and (with Dave Worrall) The Essential Bond (Boxtree, 1998/Harper Collins, 1999). He also wrote (with Michael Lewis) The Films of Harrison Ford (Citadel, 2002) and (with Dave Worrall) The Great Fox War Movies (20th Century Fox Home Entertainment, 2006). He is the founder (with Dave Worrall) of Cinema Retro magazine.

Steven Jay Rubin is the author of The James Bond Films: A Behind-the-Scenes History (Random House, 1981) and The Complete James Bond Movie Encyclopedia (McGraw-Hill, 2002). He also wrote Combat Films: American Realism, 1945-2010 (McFarland, 2011) and has written for Cinefantastique magazine.

Bruce Scivally is the author (with John Cork) of James Bond: The Legacy (Abrams, 2002). He has also written Superman on Film, Television, Radio & Broadway (McFarland, 2006) and Billion Dollar Batman: A History of the Caped Crusader on Film, Radio and Television from 10¢ Comic Book to Global Icon (Henry Gray, 2011). He teaches screenwriting, film production and cinema history and theory at the Illinois Institute of Art-Chicago and Columbia College.

Dave Worrall is the author (with Lee Pfeiffer) of The Essential Bond (Boxtree, 1998/Harper Collins, 1999) and is the publisher of The James Bond Collector’s Club magazine. He also wrote (with Lee Pfeiffer) The Great Fox War Movies (20th Century Fox Home Entertainment, 2006). He is the founder (with Lee Pfeiffer) of Cinema Retro magazine.

And now that the participants have been introduced, might I suggest you begin playing your favorite 007 soundtrack album and prepare a martini (shaken, not stirred, of course), and then enjoy this conversation with some of the world’s foremost experts on all things James Bond…

Michael Coate (The Digital Bits): Why is the 50th anniversary of the James Bond movie series worthy of celebration?

Jon Burlingame: There have been plenty of character and story franchises throughout film history, but none that have lasted as long (especially under a single aegis) or proven as resilient as James Bond. He emerged as a Cold War hero and has managed to change with the times, both in terms of geopolitical background and filmmaking trends.

John Cork: First off, we got a great Bond film for the anniversary! Second, because Bond makes us happy. He still represents everything we aspire to in so many ways – some level of invincibility, some form of the love we have for the very British combination of adventure, dry humor and good taste. We celebrate them because, for better or worse, they changed the film industry. And, finally, the anniversary gave us some wonderful examinations of the series in book form – Charles Helfenstein’s wonderful look at the mid-way Bond, The Living Daylights; Bill Desowitz’s unique view of Bond through the eyes of the actors who played 007; Jon Burlingame’s vibrant history of the music of 007, a book only he could have written; and Paul Duncan’s official archive work that is really quite spectacular.

Bill Desowitz: It’s the longest-running franchise and a cultural legacy about power and strength and survival that continues to have an impact. And it’s a testament to survival and durability and lasting appeal. In an era where so much is disposable and so little consensus, Bond continues to be there for us as cinematic comfort food, as a tradition that gets passed down from family to family, from generation to generation, particularly from father to son. It was a thrill taking my two sons to see their first Bond in a theater (Quantum of Solace), and they eagerly awaited Skyfall. They also enjoyed seeing some of the earlier movies in a theater during the 50th anniversary celebration last year.

Paul Duncan: As far as I am aware, this is the only film series to last fifty years. Not only has it lasted, it has thrived, developed, and regenerated itself, creating the template for the modern action film. It has given so much pleasure to so many people around the world, that it seems appropriate to celebrate the achievement.

Charles Helfenstein: It’s a celebration of quality from start to finish – from Ian Fleming’s superb research, action packed but elegant writing to the Broccoli mantra of putting every dollar on the screen. While the series has had some dips in the road, it is a remarkable fifty-year streak of compelling entertainment.

Mark O’Connell: Because half a century in any industry is an achievement. And it is half a century that has been marked with success, creative savvy and industry fortitude as the good ship 007 navigates through evolving studio and box office pressures. Despite its global reach, the Bond franchise is still run by the smallest corner shop in an age of corporate superstores. The industry of Bond – the employment, merchandise, tourism, the artistry, what it represents for cinema owners the world over – is a crucial cog in the history of popular culture.

Lee Pfeiffer: There is no other film series that comes close to surviving fifty years. There have been characters like Batman and Superman that have been in films for decades before Bond, but these were not consistently done by the same production company. What makes the Bonds unique is that Eon Productions has been behind every one of the “official” 007 films. The series has thrived through decades, despite the public’s fickle behavior towards pop culture icons. Every time the series seems to be running out of steam, the producers find a way to reinvigorate. It’s quite remarkable, really.

Steven Jay Rubin: In the case of the James Bond films, celebrating a 50th anniversary is a huge toast to the consistent quality, popularity and historical significance of the series. For over fifty years, the Broccoli family has provided a motion picture product that has enthralled generations of moviegoers, never alienating the family adventure audience that has been its stock in trade. The films can be violent and sexy, but the producers have never crossed the line, providing the closest thing we have today to a stamped guarantee of entertainment for the entire family.

Bruce Scivally: Never in the history of cinema has there been another series that has remained vital for so long and has been produced by the same family. The first Tarzan movie was released in 1918, and Tarzan movies are still being produced, but the films are not part of one unbroken series from the same producer. The same goes for Sherlock Holmes. James Bond, however, has been on cinema screens since 1962, and all of the films have been produced or executive produced by Albert R. Broccoli, his stepson Michael G. Wilson or his daughter Barbara Broccoli.

Dave Worrall: Any institution that relies on commercialism and has proved to be successful and profitable is worthy of celebrating. In the film industry even more so, as fads generally burn themselves out. It’s a great achievement.

Coate: To what do you attribute the enduring appeal of the series?

Burlingame: During its first fifteen years the films were made by Cubby Broccoli and Harry Saltzman, who – against the odds – kept making movies (with three different actors playing 007) that people wanted to see, continually upping the action and outrageousness quotient. In subsequent years, with Broccoli alone in charge, Bond remained popular (and that continues today with Michael Wilson and Barbara Broccoli in charge). The character is in many ways a hero for the ages, as someone who battles evil on behalf of all of us; accomplishes feats that the average guy wishes he could; and is as attractive to women as he is admirable to men. That’s a movie hero any producer would wish for. And by watching and employing what’s working in other successful action films, Bond filmmakers have also managed to stay current while keeping their own very specific approach.

Cork: Style. Bond films almost always feel different, but not like, say, an IronMan film, where one has no foot in reality. Bond’s world isn’t the world as it is; it is the world as we would like to imagine it.

Desowitz: Bond’s power and freedom are very thrilling and sexy, and are underscored by the iconic elements of the franchise. It’s also comforting to have a world savior protecting us while at the same time rebelling against the very authority that sanctions him with a license to kill. As Pierce Brosnan told me, “...he remains somewhat timeless, somewhat trapped within a period of time as well.” And the producers have managed to find actors to convey different personalities in keeping with the times. Today, Daniel Craig is very much a post-9/11 Bond reaching back to the angst of the Fleming books.

Duncan: I think the enduring longevity of James Bond is a tribute to the good business practices and artistic sensitivities of the producers. Harry Saltzman and Albert R. “Cubby” Broccoli began the series with Dr. No in 1962, Cubby continued on his own from The Spy Who loved Me, then with his stepson Michael G. Wilson, and finally Michael and Cubby’s daughter, Barbara Broccoli, evolved the series from GoldenEye onwards to the latest film Skyfall. Not only do they put all the money up on the screen, but they are smart enough to give the directors, actors, production designers, special effects supervisors, and stunt people the creative freedom to experiment and try new things so that they produce their best work for the movies. The result is that these four producers have an incredible track record that no other production company can match – twenty-three films over fifty years and every one of them made a profit, because every one of them entertained a worldwide audience. Over the years, the series has been “rebooted” as a new actor takes over the role of Bond, or because of changes in the market, but the cinema Bond always remains very close to Ian Fleming’s depiction of Bond in the novels. This is the secret of the franchise’s success – you don’t mess with a proven formula. I think this is also the reason why Daniel Craig’s interpretation of Bond has been so successful – he is probably closer to Fleming’s Bond, and Connery’s original interpretation, than any of the other actors who have played the role.

Helfenstein: James Bond is an aspirational character, the ultimate male fantasy. We want to own the coolest gadgets, vanquish the evil doers, wear the most stylish clothes, thwart death with aplomb, and make love to the most beautiful women. The Bond films let us do that.

O’Connell: Quality. Integrity. Style. And then some more integrity for good measure.

Pfeiffer: The producers always seem to find the right Bond for the right era. It’s inconceivable that audiences today would accept Roger Moore’s overtly humorous interpretation of the role, but it’s just as valid to say that Daniel Craig would have been considered far too somber for audiences in the 70s and 80s. There is also a first class, larger-than-life feel to all of the Bond movies, even the weakest entries.

Rubin: Brand recognition combined with consistent quality equals enduring appeal. We have few guarantees in our movie choices and most of those are short-lived. People will stick with a quality product, just like they’ll stick with their favorite radio station, steak house, liquor of choice and route to work. We want comfort in selection and the Bond films do that more effectively each year. The fact that grandparents can share their love of a character with grandchildren also doesn’t hurt. After fifty years, the Bond movies have a terrific following. Who hasn’t seen at least one Bond movie?

Scivally: The 007 films combine the classic appeal of hero epics in the St. George and the Dragon mode with the tough, cynical anti-heroes of American noir fiction, like Mike Hammer. When the films came along, they added humor to the mix, plus a kind of transparent consumerism and embracing of technology that made the films seem very modern.

Worrall: Initially, pure guaranteed entertainment of the highest order. The audience have never been short-changed, and the producers have worked hard to up the ante every time.

Coate: If Ian Fleming or Albert Broccoli were alive today, how do you think they would feel about how the series has played out?

Burlingame: Fleming was a practical man and I suspect that, while he might have distanced himself from the increasingly outrageous storylines and “superman” aspects of the Bond persona of the 1970s and beyond, he would have seen the films as a financial boon and a constant source of new readers for the old books. I have no doubt that Broccoli would be very pleased with how his children have handled the Bond cinema legacy; they have taken what is essentially a family business and continued to thrive well into the 21st century. Bravo to them.

Cork: I think Ian would have been mortified by the Bond of the 70s and 80s, resigned to the Bond of the 90s and eternally grateful for the Bond of Daniel Craig. That’s my perception of Fleming’s feelings. Personally, had the 70s and 80s tried to play Bond as the same character in From Russia With Love, the series wouldn’t have lasted. I was fortunate to have known Cubby a bit, not closely, but honored to have conversations with him about Bond. He would be over the moon, but not about the content of the films. He would have been so honored and proud that Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli have carried on his legacy and made it their own. They didn’t screw it up, and that would have meant the world to him.

Desowitz: I think Fleming would be pleased that Bond has returned to the conflicted spy of his books; Broccoli would be proud that his children have found great success and prestige with their own Bond suited to the times. By the way, Harry Saltzman would be proud as well because the serious touch is in keeping with the dramatic side that appealed to him as a producer. There’s a kitchen sink element to Craig’s Bond that harkens back to Saltzman’s signature.

Duncan: Ian Fleming would have been happy to see that the character he created, which in no small part was based on himself, had been so successful and so universally recognized throughout the world. It would be interesting to speculate about his role in the development of the character – because surely he would have continued writing Bond – and his input into the film plots and screenplays, but I think ultimately he would be pleased to allow Cubby Broccoli and Harry Saltzman to continue making the films as they saw fit. Albert Broccoli were keenly aware of the audience, and the global reach of the films, so would have been proud of the way that his stepson and daughter have continued his legacy, by developing the character of Bond, and finding new markets for the films.

Helfenstein: I think both men would be immensely proud of their legacy. Ian for the fact that his character has become not just a phenomenon but a cultural touchstone, a synonym for cool and high tech. Cubby for the fact that his children have taken his production company and the Bond series to even greater heights.

O’Connell: I think Cubby would be most proud of the efforts of his children and the wider creative Eon family. I am so glad he got to see the revival of the series with GoldenEye as well as the suggestion of a new momentum to the series when Tomorrow Never Dies was in its early stages. The now oft-overlooked importance of instinct is all over the Daniel Craig films. That was something Cubby nurtured in the Bond family. There is a determination to get these films right – from the admin staff via the studio technicians up to the director. Of course, Fleming would not have recognized how the films evolved, yet the legacy of his creation – the fresh canvas it allows each new film – is testament to the baton of character and storytelling Broccoli, Saltzman and their colleagues then ran with.

Pfeiffer: I would think Fleming would have been appalled by most of the films that came out after his death in 1964 because of the increasing emphasis on hardware and gadgets. However, Cubby would have been over the moon. Back in 1994, most of the pundits thought reviving Bond for GoldenEye was absurd in the post-Cold War era. But Cubby told me he felt it was time to turn the franchise over to “the kids,” Barbara and Michael. He had full confidence they could make Bond relevant again. Although he was very ill, he did have the satisfaction of seeing his prediction come true. I think he would be overjoyed at seeing how popular Bond is with the younger audiences. This man lived and breathed 007 and was always eager to talk about the series.

Rubin: Ian Fleming would be absolutely stunned that the series has lasted this long, after all his book titles ran out in the 70s. He would be happy for his heirs, but seriously surprised that Bond could endure. Cubby wouldn’t be surprised, because he knew how the business worked. Give the public what they want, and they’ll keep coming. He would be very happy with Barbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson’s stewardship. Come to think of it, if he took a look at the price tag, he would be stunned, as would most producers from his era. Hard to believe that a film like Dr. No cost $1 million, the price of craft service and lunch on the last film.

Scivally: Almost immediately after creating 007, Ian Fleming set about trying to interest producers in bringing James Bond to movies or TV. I believe he would be delighted that the film series has carried on for so long, and kept interest in his original novels alive. And I’m sure Broccoli would be very proud that, under the stewardship of Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli, the series has not only continued but thrived.

Worrall: I think Fleming would be amused, and Cubby very proud.

Coate: Which was the first James Bond movie you saw and what was it about it or subsequent films that made you a fan?

Burlingame: I saw Thunderball and You Only Live Twice at a drive-in, and On Her Majesty’s Secret Service in a theater, in the late 1960s. I was hooked on the music even before seeing the films, however, as the title songs were playing on the radio and I was already a fan of composer John Barry. I bought the On Her Majesty’s Secret Service album immediately and the other Bond soundtracks soon after. Plus, I had been a spy-TV fan from 1964, having watched and adored The Man from U.N.C.L.E. from the very beginning, so I was primed for the big-screen experience fairly early.

Cork: The first film I have any memory of seeing in any movie theater anywhere was From Russia With Love. I was three. I didn’t become a real fan until I saw Live and Let Die when I was eleven.

Desowitz: I remember my parents taking me to see Goldfinger in ‘65 in the [San Fernando] Valley and it was one of my most memorable childhood filmgoing experiences. I found it uniquely fun and exciting. I even whispered that Bond should grab the cable during his fight with Oddjob. That same year I caught up with Dr. No and From Russia With Love at a drive-in double-bill. I was pretty much hooked.

Duncan: My first Bond film was Sean Connery’s Diamonds are Forever whilst on holiday in Ilfracombe in Devon. I got the Corgi Aston Martin DB5 as a present for my birthday, and then my dad took me to see a double bill of Thunderball and On Her Majesty’s Secret Service. I loved the cars, the stunts, the exotic locations, but most of all I loved the confidence and humor of James Bond. As I grew older, from The Spy Who Loved Me onwards, I made sure that I saw the films when they were released. As each new actor was introduced as Bond, it seemed to rejuvenate the character, and the series.

Helfenstein: My first memories of Bond films were from watching them on TV, sadly the butchered ABC versions. But I was hooked. The first Bond film I saw in the theater was Moonraker. While its fidelity to Fleming’s work is, shall we say, lacking, it is still an entertaining film, and quite a thrill for a nine-year-old. I wanted his wrist dart gun SOOO badly!

O’Connell: On one of our Divorced Parent Sundays my Dad took a very reluctant me to the Guildford Odeon to see Octopussy upon release. But I wanted to see Return of the Jedi again and had quite an anti-Bond tantrum in the cinema’s foyer and got wedged in the turnstiles trying to push my way out. But Dad quite rightly stood his parental ground – something which made absolute sense in the months and years that followed. As Cubby Broccoli’s sex and sari actioner unfurled before me I became instantly infatuated with Bond. All the facets that some sniffy fans dismiss – the tuk-tuk chase, the gymnastic assault, the crocodile and fold-up jet – were perfect filmic fodder to get a seven year old hooked on a series. It was not long after I fully fathomed that my grandfather Jimmy had worked with Cubby Broccoli and the Eon family for years. I was then drip-fed nuggets of news, posters and merchandise from A View to a Kill which ramped up my anticipation. It was – and still is – the traditions of a Bond film’s genesis that reminds me why I am a fan. The announcement of a title, the first poster, the first photograph, the first play of the song… the Bond machine has rarely changed in how it fanfares itself. And Skyfall was such a reminder of the global pull and weight of a new Bond film. What other series of films makes BBC News headlines with the launch of a title song or first trailer?!

Pfeiffer: The first Bond movie I saw was From Russia With Love in 1963. I didn’t want to see it; I thought it was a love story. As an eight-year-old boy, I was only interested in the second feature, Twice Told Tales starring Vincent Price, who I always admired. By the time Bond unspooled, I was hooked and very frustrated when I found out there had been an earlier 007 movie that I didn’t see. I finally caught Dr. No when it was released in ‘65 as part of a double feature.

Rubin: I saw Goldfinger at Christmas 1964 after reading the book – a time when I first started to see movies based on books I read. At that time, those little colorful Signet paperbacks were on everybody’s desk in my junior high. Goldfinger was just the coolest movie to see and it delivered big time. Sean Connery was terrific with those throwaway lines, Shirley Eaton and Honor Blackman were sexy as hell, and Goldfinger himself was a bigger than life villain with a totally wicked henchman in Oddjob. Plus the car, oh yeah, the car.

Scivally: The first 007 film I saw was Goldfinger, which I watched on television. Bond’s cool, his way with women, and his Aston Martin made an indelible impression, especially since I was just entering puberty and Bond is the ultimate male power fantasy figure.

Worrall:Goldfinger. It was the sense of the fantastic made to feel as though it was realistic. Never once, when I watched You Only Live Twice for the first time did I feel as though the plot was outlandish. It was played seriously and meant to be plausible. Today, of course, it would be classed as over the top.

Coate: What compelled you to write your 007 books?

Burlingame: The one aspect of Bond that has never been properly, or thoroughly, chronicled was the creation of the songs and scores that made such an indelible contribution to the series. I knew all of the composers and many of the songwriters, having written about film music for over twenty-five years, and the 50th anniversary of the franchise seemed like the right time to tackle the subject.

Cork: I was very fortunate. I got a call asking me if I would be interested. Working with Bruce Scivally, Maryam d’Abo and Collin Stutz on the books I worked on made the jobs all much more enjoyable!

Desowitz: I had the unique opportunity to interview all six Bond actors, beginning with Brosnan for a piece about The World is Not Enough, paired with Michael Apted. For the 40th, Variety assigned me to interview other actors, so with a lot of patience and persistence, I snagged Sean Connery by phone on the set of his last film, The League of Extraordinary Gentleman, which is the last in-depth interview he’s granted about Bond. After that, nothing stopped me from getting George Lazenby, Timothy Dalton, and Roger Moore, as well as more time with Brosnan at the Die Another Day junket. Then, at the last moment, I scored a USA Today assignment to interview Craig at the Casino Royale junket, and I re-purposed some of my interview material with the other five for the first and only piece featuring all six actors. I subsequently interviewed Craig again at the Quantum junket. Interviewing all the Bonds has been a journalistic highlight: they were all friendly and gracious with their time, and I learned a lot about their individual approaches and challenges and highlights. So, with the 50th anniversary approaching, I thought it would be fun and instructive to use my interview material as the basis of a book-length exploration of how Bond has evolved, so that’s how I came to write James Bond Unmasked, using my interview material combined with blow by blow plot synopses and commentaries about each film. I thought it would be a handy reference for the casual fan and I’m grateful that Charles Helfenstein (The Making of The Living Daylights and The Making of On Her Majesty’s Secret Service) agreed to publish the book. I’m currently working on a Skyfall chapter for an updated e-book edition that will be available on Amazon in the fall.

Duncan: Twelve years ago in my job interview with publisher Benedict Taschen, he said, “I’ve always wanted to do a big James Bond book,” so it was an idea that had always been there. Then over three years ago he brought it up again, and a couple of months later I got a call from Eon asking if we’d like to do the book for the 50th anniversary of Bond. I said, “Sure, when did Benedict contact you?” But he hadn’t. Taschen and Eon had the same idea at the same time. It was one of those great moments of synchronicity. There have been hundreds of books published about James Bond, and I thought that maybe the world did not need another one. But Eon said that we could have complete access to their vast archive – over a million photos, and over 100 filing cabinets – so I thought that maybe I could find something new for fans to read. I spent thirty months researching the archives, and decided to present the book as an oral history of how the films are made. I think the resulting book, The James Bond Archives, gives an accurate picture of the inventiveness, perseverance, and humor the cast and crew needed to employ to get the movies onto the screen, on schedule, and hopefully under budget. Although James Bond is the figurehead of the series, he is supported by a vast number of people, and I wanted to explain how the series works, and why it works.

Helfenstein: I suppose the polite word is passion. More accurately obsession. I wanted to research my favorite Bond films in extreme detail – from the story’s origin in the notebooks and manuscripts of Ian Fleming, through to the screenwriting stage, including the many interesting alternate scripts that were written but not filmed, through the casting and pre-production, the location and studio filming, on through post-production, release and marketing, and finally how the film altered the Bond series history. When we “consume” a Bond film as viewers, we have a finished product. All the creative decisions have been made. I wanted to shine a spotlight on the remarkable journey a Bond film takes to the screen, and the reasons and influences behind those creative decisions.

O’Connell: I had been toying with writing a reappraisal of the series. But that could have been a very dry opinion piece and no one wants that. So when I bit the bullet and saw the personal story of a pop culture childhood flanked by 007, dads, sons, chauffeurs, the Broccolis and a Roger Moore fixation staring me in the face it suddenly fell into place. Of course the fiftieth anniversary presented a publishing window, but my publishers and I always said that need not be make or break. In the end, it proved perfect timing. But you cannot plan for that. Finally, I believe the number of films in the Bond series greatly supports people’s fascination and fondness for them. It is easy to become a fan of a series that has so many episodes to discover. I wanted to write a book that looked at the life of being a fan from the perspective of each film, hence the title Catching Bullets.

Pfeiffer: I actually wrote two official Bond books. I had become friendly with Cubby in 1989 and he was eager to read a book about John Wayne that I had done, as he liked Duke very much. Upon reading it, he asked me to write a history of the 007 films. It was quite an honor. I asked my friend Phil Lisa to co-author with me and the response to the book was very good. It was titled either The Incredible World of 007 or The Incredible World of James Bond...believe it or not, I can’t remember. But it was a great deal of fun to do. We went to Cubby’s house in Beverly Hills to interview him and spent a wonderful afternoon there. The second book, The Essential James Bond, was done at the suggestion of myself and Dave Worrall. I think it came out in the late 1990s but it was reprinted and updated after that. It was phenomenally successful and actually made the bestseller list in the UK. Due to some rights issues between Eon and the publishing company, it hasn’t been updated since but I probably should pursue having a new edition put out at some point in the future. Dave and I don’t do many books any more because our magazine, Cinema Retro, takes up so much of our time.

Rubin: I had started to get a reputation in film history circles as someone who could do original research, particularly from the articles on 1950s science fiction classics that I was writing for Cinefantastique magazine in Chicago. I would interview the original filmmakers for classics like Forbidden Planet, War of the Worlds, Them! and The Day the Earth Stood Still. I would also try to collect rare behind-the-scenes stills to help tell the story. Having purchased John Brosnan’s excellent book, James Bond in the Cinema, I realized that there was very little behind-the-scenes information on a series that by 1977 was nearly two decades old. I realized that there was an opportunity to be the first to chronicle the history of the James Bond films. I dove right into the research and received excellent initial cooperation from Cubby and Michael. Although we had a falling out, my first book, The James Bond Films: A Behind-the-Scenes History was a success as was the follow-up, The Complete James Bond Movie Encyclopedia.

Scivally: I co-authored James Bond: The Legacy with John Cork for a simple reason: I was asked. Being a huge Bond fan, there was no way I was going to say no.

Worrall: Lee (Pfeiffer) and I had the knowledge and passion, which we wanted to share with others at a time when no serious Bond film book had been written.

Coate: Do you approve of the way the 007 movies have been handled on their Blu-ray release? Any thoughts on the 50th anniversary boxed set?

Cork: Ha! I don’t get to approve or disapprove! It’s great they are all out on Blu-ray. I would have loved to have done rebuilds on all the documentaries that were not rebuilt to HD 16:9 in 2008, and I would have loved for all the special features my company produced to have been on the Casino Royale Blu-ray, but these are quibbles. Overall, it is a pretty spectacular release.

Desowitz: I thought it was great to have a Blu-ray box set of all the films and have since added Skyfall to the placeholder to complete the filmography. I think the HD upgrade has made for superior home entertainment viewing and that the late John Lowry did a tremendous job overseeing the digital work. I wish there would’ve been more 50th anniversary material and it would’ve been ideal to have the previous bonus material remastered in HD.

Helfenstein: I’m pleased the films are all available in high definition in an attractive package, though I am a bit disappointed that supplementary materials were not presented in high definition. I contributed on some of the supplementary materials for On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, including the documentary on the aerial filming, which came from my collection. Some of my Fleming collection can be seen in the Fleming documentary on The Living Daylights disc. I was also disappointed at some of the odd Photoshopped images on the inside and outside of the packaging of the set.

O’Connell: I am never one to get excited about being able to own films again I already own. Apart from completist reasons (which is exactly why box-sets sell). But saying that, I was kindly given one of the Bond Blu-ray sets and it is a gorgeous representation and record of fifty years of 007. The individual menus design and sections could have benefited from more of a visual flourish, but it is the films themselves where the value of such a set comes alive. When watching the 1980s Moore films I felt vaguely reminded of seeing them for the first time with a depth and color to even fairly innocuous scenes teleporting me instantly back to the Regal Cinema, Cranleigh. With a beautifully rendered set like this you really see and hear the creative decisions of everyone involved on a Bond. In reproducing the series in such a contemporary way, they curiously become the best time capsules of what these Bond movies were in their day.

Pfeiffer: Regarding the Blu-rays, I’m embarrassed to say I haven’t watched any… except I caught the end of Thunderball on Blu-ray. The others still sit here sealed. It’s not a lack of interest, but a lack of time. We get inundated with DVDs to review for our magazine and the Cinema Retro web site and there aren’t enough hours in the day to get to them all. Consequently, I have almost no time to revisit movies I’ve seen many times. Some day, I’ll have to make time for an all-day Bond Blu-ray marathon.

Rubin: I’m not really a techie when it comes to quality of the image, etc. But I believe the Bonds have always been in good technical hands when it came to distribution. John Cork’s documentaries have been a first class special feature and a pleasure to watch.

Worrall: Apart from Skyfall, I have not had time to watch them. However, it was a good marketing ploy, as many people I know bought the boxed set as they had never bought a Bond film on DVD before.

Coate: Which actor is the best James Bond?

Burlingame: All six have displayed great strengths and the occasional weakness. I like them all to varying degrees, although I think Timothy Dalton tried to hew closer to the Ian Fleming conception of the character than his predecessor; and I suspect that Daniel Craig will someday be listed as the only one who can touch, and maybe even better, what Sean Connery did with his initial performances as Bond.

Cork: Ha, again! I go round and round on how to answer this question. I love Connery’s Bond, but would he have been right in The Spy Who Loved Me? No. I am at a point where I just embrace them all.

Desowitz: For me Connery will always be the best: he gave us something extraordinarily sexy and dangerous, a fun combination of upper class and working class sensibilities that touched a cultural nerve. Bond never would’ve lasted if he had been played by anyone else.

Duncan: There is no “best” since it is all a matter of personal preference, and each actor has his own interpretation. The early Sean Connery films show Bond as a lean hunter, and feel close to the Fleming Bond. George Lazenby had the best story, and did everything right, but suffered in comparison to Connery. If he had continued, Lazenby, with director Peter Hunt, would have made a sharper, muscular, and perhaps darker series of films. Roger Moore was flippant and good fun, making hard work seemingly effortless. Timothy Dalton was closer to Fleming’s Bond, but the audience didn’t seem ready for his intense performance. It’s a pity because he has some great moments, especially in Licence to Kill. Pierce Brosnan combined the suave wit of Roger Moore with the grit of Sean Connery and I’m sure that for many he is the ideal film Bond. Daniel Craig’s Bond is being formed by his experiences over the course of the movies, much as in the novels, and this is one of the reasons audiences find his interpretation has a pleasing psychological complexity.

Helfenstein: The safe answer is Sean Connery. My answer is it depends on your mood, and Cubby Broccoli alluded to this when he said, “Each generation finds what it needs in him.” Can I have Sean’s charisma, George’s swagger, Roger’s humor, Timothy’s intensity, Pierce’s charm, and Daniel’s physique all rolled into one?

O’Connell: The best should always be whoever we have now. That never bodes well for the more recent predecessors, but neither does forever pinning the character of Bond back to the mid-1960s and a very different era of screen heroism and masculinity (which was itself rooted in Fleming’s early 1950s thoughts on the same). Some Bonds are played by movie stars (Brosnan, Moore, Connery) and others are played by movie actors (Dalton). But Daniel Craig is possibly the first to straddle both. And he does so with ease – cleverly and carefully making the drives and passions of a very internal character the most external they have ever been. Like a vintage champagne – not quite vintage the initial year it is produced – I believe Daniel Craig will be one of the defining Bonds. Unlike any Bond actor before him Daniel Craig emerges as less a movie star fulfilling a tempting contract and more of a movie actor with a creative ownership and pride over the character and the direction of the franchise like never before. It was Craig who approached Sam Mendes. It was Craig who championed Adele and was grinning beside her like a schoolboy when she bagged the Golden Globe. And it will be Craig who no doubt has a necessary say on what happens withBond 24.

Pfeiffer: Asking which actor is the “best” Bond results in a politically correct answer: they are all good in their own way. Sentimentally, those of us who grew up in the 60s inevitably believe Connery is and always will be “The Man.” However, I think all of the actors were excellent in their own way. In terms of dramatic skill, I’d have to rate Daniel Craig as the best of the group.

Rubin: You generally favor the Bond you grew up with, so I tend to extoll the virtues of Sean Connery who brought a great deal of panache and sex appeal, let alone the two-fisted machismo that Harry and Cubby required of their lead. However, I am a huge fan of Daniel Craig, who has brought a ton of gravitas to the role of Bond, along with a great deal of physicality that matches Connery frame by frame.

Scivally: I feel there is no “best.” Each actor who has played the role has been right for the era in which he took it on. My favorite is Sean Connery, but I believe that Connery’s interpretation of the character would not have worked in the 70s and early 80s, when Roger Moore struck just the right note of self-mockery for the lighter-toned entries in the series. As action films became grittier, Timothy Dalton, Pierce Brosnan and Daniel Craig all fit the tenor of their times.

Worrall: The one suited to the style of the moment.

Coate: Who is the best 007 villain?

Burlingame: I’ve always liked Gert Frobe as Auric Goldfinger, so bizarre (for 1964) and completely believable as the mastermind of a brilliant if mad scheme. That’s tough to pull off.

Cork: I love Goldfinger for so many reasons, but it is hard to top the cast in From Russia With Love, and Silva was fantastic!

Desowitz: Goldfinger was the most fun villain we love to hate the most. The golf match and laser scenes are the best cat-and-mouse games between Bond and his nemesis.

Duncan: I love the way that Auric Goldfinger is the hero of his own life, and looks down upon the troublesome James Bond as a minor player. Goldfinger is not interested in Bond until it becomes apparent Bond may have information that interfere with his plans. He dialogue and attitude are great fun to watch, and beyond cliché. Well written and well played. The Bond villain is now a tricky character to write because so many have come before, and been played so well. Elektra King is the best of the modern villains because of her ambiguity, the way in which she is both soft and evil at the same time. It could also have something to do with my crush on Sophie Marceau.

Helfenstein: Ernst Stravro Blofeld. Four men have played him, five if you count John Hollis, six if you count Anthony Dawson. The same number of men as Bond. Every hero needs an arch enemy, and Blofeld is the textbook definition of a super villain.

O’Connell: Until recently I would have easily have claimed Charles Gray’s Blofeld or Christopher Walken’s Max Zorin. I adore Gray’s banter and poise – all tinged with a suggestion of tedium at the ineptitude of the world’s superpowers. And Walken has those rolling eyes doing all the work as his foppish frame strives to gentrify a botched Nazi experiment. But now I would have to circle Javier Bardem’s Raoul Silva. It feels kneejerk to pin him as the best 007 villain, but if anyone put the Persian cat amongst the SPECTRE pigeons it was Bardem in Skyfall. I remember seeing it for the first time with Mark Gatiss (who is steeped in the history of British horror literature and cinema). We both looked to each other in shocked awe at Silva’s entrance, the lasciviousness of his delivery (“we can either eat each other” – cue a knowing smirk) and a compelling through-line that was damning Silva as much as asking us to sympathize with him. The character is proper creepy. The literal jaw-dropping moment really got under my skin (though that could be the result of my own childhood dental work traumas). There was a baroque grotesqueness and horror to Silva which the Bond series has not really done before (aside from maybe Mendes’ clear influence and favorite, Live and Let Die). Silva is testament to the Craig era and a marvelous junction of writer, director and actor pulling off what, on paper, could have been all ham and no bite. Silva has both.

Pfeiffer: My favorite “main villain” has always been Gert Frobe as Goldfinger, but for “supporting villain” it’s Robert Shaw’s Red Grant… he’s the only baddie who you thought might actually kill Bond.

Rubin: Goldfinger was, to me, the quintessential obsessed villain. Of course, everything about the film, Goldfinger, is just about perfect. Hard to believe that they were ready to shelve it, in favor of Thunderball.

Scivally: My personal favorite villain is Goldfinger. Gert Frobe was a superb actor, and brought an energy to his villainy that made it seem like cracking good fun.

Worrall: I preferred Goldfinger, Largo and You Only Live Twice’s Blofeld. Larger then life, but believable. However, the villains in all of the Craig Bond films have been terrific.

Coate: Best Bond girl?

Burlingame: Pussy Galore.

Cork: I always go with Ursula Andress as Honey Rider, but so many of them get my pulse to rise.

Desowitz: Mrs. Bond, Diana Rigg, the former Mrs. Peel, is my favorite. She matches the spirit and romance and tragedy that underlies Bond.

Duncan: The Bond template requires Bond to meet a good girl and a bad girl, and invariably the bad girls are much more interesting – they are sexy, independent, intelligent, fierce and, most importantly, more fun. It seems to me that Bond has a much better time with the bad girls rather than the wimpy good girls. But there are a few very capable, intelligent, fierce, funny good girls in the series, most notably Pam Bouvier in Licence to Kill, Natalya in GoldenEye, Wai Lin in Tomorrow Never Dies, and Jinx in Die Another Day.

Helfenstein: Diana Rigg as Tracy. Untouchable in the rankings of Bond girls. The only woman that Bond would hang up the PPK for.

O’Connell: Without a hesitation, Maud Adams’s Octopussy. I am biased in all sorts of ways (this author was very obsessed by that film and leading lady) but if anyone channels that classical Bond glamour tinged with a bit of Fleming autumnal regret and experience, it is Maud’s Octopussy. A good Bond woman should tell us about Bond himself. The best 007 leading ladies – Diana Rigg, Honor Blackman, Michelle Yeoh, Eva Green, Bérénice Marlohe and Maud – have all laid bare the whims and wiles of Bond way before they let us into themselves. And Maud was and still is a very elegant, dignified ambassador for the series. It was no accident she was invited back to test other Bonds and of course complete her own 007 film trilogy. I grinned like a mad Mr. Wint all weekend when she said she would gladly write a few words for my book.

Pfeiffer: My favorite Bond girl is and always will be Ursula Andress… you just can’t compete with that iconic introduction.

Rubin: Claudine Auger as Dominique Derval. Best wardrobe or, should we say, lack of wardrobe.

Scivally: The first Bond film I saw in a theater was The Spy Who Loved Me, and Barbara Bach’s Anya Amasova remains my favorite Bond girl, because she held her own against Roger Moore’s 007. But, as an Avengers fan, I also like Diana Rigg’s Tracy di Vicenzo – more because I like Rigg than because I like the character.

Worrall: The one with the biggest chest! No, seriously; Eva Green in Casino Royale was brilliant, as was Diana Rigg in On Her Majesty’s Secret Service.

Coate: Best theme song?

Burlingame:We Have All the Time in the World by John Barry and Hal David, sung by Louis Armstrong in On Her Majesty’s Secret Service.

Cork: Why pick favorites? Paul McCartney’s Live and Let Die was one of the reasons I became a fan. Goldfinger, The Look of Love, Nobody Does It Better; this was the soundtrack to my life. Heck, I love Where Has Everybody Gone and Another Way to Die! It just depends too much on my mood. Some days are a We Have All the Time in the World day; some days are Mister Kiss Kiss Bang Bang day!

Desowitz: The Bond Theme. It personifies everything about Bond and the moment you hear it, fifty years of memories are instantly recalled.

Duncan: My son loves Madonna’s theme for Die Another Day, which a lot of fans dislike. My son loves it because it’s the only theme that’s not a power ballad. Madonna’s theme song is a modern song, with beats and electronic stuff that I know nothing about. Curiously, it also works well with the title sequence – which shows Bond being tortured using scorpions. For me, the theme song has to work with the title sequence, within the film, and not necessarily work alone on the radio. The best two are Goldfinger, where director Guy Hamilton made Shirley Bassey hit certain words and phrases in sync with the images, and Skyfall, where the Adele’s song invokes both the mood of the moment, and foreshadows the story to come.

Helfenstein:Goldfinger. As Marvin Hamlisch once said, if you’re dead, you wake up for the opening horn blast of Goldfinger.

O’Connell: I think Bassey’s Diamonds are Forever is a flawless piece of movie music – speaking volumes about the wit, sexuality and twilight world of Bond, his women and foes. And All Time High reminds me of falling in love with Bond music via my Dad’s car stereo and a soundtrack cassette from Cubby’s office. But Duran Duran’s A View to a Kill is the one for me. It was the first time I was aware that a Bond song had a cult, drive and cache of its own – one which was my first indicator of the size and scale of the cultural phenomenon of Bond. The song was everywhere in the hot London summer of 1985 and is a decade defining hit, with or without Bond.

Pfeiffer: Favorite song is Goldfinger – nothing original about that, but You Only Live Twice is a close second.

Rubin:Goldfinger.

Scivally: The best theme song is The James Bond Theme from Dr. No, but I also like the instrumental theme of On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, and the powerful vocals of Goldfinger, The Spy Who Loved Me and The World is Not Enough.

Worrall:From Russia With Love thru You Only Live Twice are inseparable. Skyfall is pretty close, too.

Coate: Best 007 gadget?

Burlingame: The original Aston Martin DB5.

Cork: While I love Little Nellie, I could see crashing it at high speed. The rocket-belt would get me killed. I’d love to see all guns made signature guns, so that would be my most favored to become real. But for me personally, I’d like the mini-rebreather. How cool to be able to snorkel, see something interesting and just have that little gadget in a swim-trunk pocket? That’s the one I’d use.

Desowitz: The Aston Martin DB5. It’s the perfect extension of Bond’s personality, and its return and destruction in Skyfall had palpable emotion tied to it. In fact, losing the car is the only thing that angers Craig’s Bond.

Duncan: The only answer to this is the Aston Martin DB5, although I often harbored dreams of owning a Lotus Esprit and visiting faraway exotic islands, where I would meet Ursula Andress and/or Raquel Welch.

Helfenstein: The jet pack. I defy you to find a cooler image than Connery wearing the jet pack on the Thunderball poster.

O’Connell: Can I claim the DB5? It is an extension of Bond and his tailoring, with its silvery grey suit, side gill pockets and bullet-diverting lapels. Like Bond, it can be regenerated, says “007” quicker than any Walther PPK or glass of Diet Vesper and is a bespoke, yet totally cinematic fiction (DB5s do not outrun Ferraris!). That moment when Craig pulls off the cover in the London lock-up to reveal the glistening DB5 got the biggest applause at the premiere.

Pfeiffer: The most iconic gadget has to be the ejector seat in the Aston Martin DB5. I remember how the audience howled in delight and surprise when it was utilized.

Rubin: The Aston Martin DB5 from Goldfinger. Thank God that Bond’s Bentley “had seen its day.”

Scivally: The Aston Martin DB5 from Goldfinger has to be the best gadget, because it set the standard that all other Bond films would follow.

Worrall: The Aston Martin DB5, obviously.

Coate: And… best 007 movie?

Burlingame: I’m very fond of the sole Lazenby film, On Her Majesty’s Secret Service. But from the Connery era, it would have to be Goldfinger; from the Moore era, probably For Your Eyes Only; from Dalton, The Living Daylights; Brosnan, Tomorrow Never Dies; and Craig, Casino Royale. As you can imagine, musical choices and approaches influence my thinking.

Cork: I know it sounds like a wimp-out, but I have numerous favorite Bond films. I think the first four are great films. They created a cinematic identity for James Bond that endures to this day. Without those first four films (Dr. No, From Russia With Love, Goldfinger and Thunderball), it is unlikely we would still be watching James Bond films. To be more specific, if You Only Live Twice had been made in 1967 as the first James Bond film, even with all its spectacle and production value, I don’t think the series would have endured for very long. I think Skyfall and Casino Royale are brilliant films that both honor and re-define the Bond genre. Having a thirteen-year-old son, it has been great to hear him and his friends talk about Bond and Skyfall, to see how that film works for them, just as it was great to sit in theaters and listen to audiences react to the film. I don’t know that there has ever been a better-directed Bond film than Skyfall. It really is a fantastic film. But my favorite? Some nights I want to watch Live and Let Die, or On Her Majesty’s Secret Service. Some nights I want to watch the 1967 Casino Royale. I don’t really try to rank them. That always frustrates folks, but it is just the way it is.

Desowitz: Even though Goldfinger was my first Bond movie and had a great impact on me, my favorite is On Her Majesty’s Secret Service because it took Bond to a whole new emotional place. It didn’t matter that Sean Connery wasn’t Bond, his presence still hung over the franchise and George Lazenby, despite his youth and inexperience, provided a fresh vitality and vulnerability as 007, falling in love for the first time, and Diana Rigg, still evoking memories of Mrs. Peel from The Avengers, was a wonderful match. Even Telly Savalas shined as Blofeld, even though he seemed miscast as well. Peter Hunt found the right mixture of action and drama in Fleming’s best book and made what I still think is a transcendent Bond film.

Duncan: I have grown up watching Bond movies, so obviously my concerns and my appreciation of the movies has changed during this period. So although I first loved the humor of Diamonds are Forever and The Spy Who Loved Me, I also loved the gadgets, the stunts, the woman, and the sheer chutzpah of the productions. Now almost fifty, I think that the film that really sticks out for me is Casino Royale. It has character and story as well as all the expected Bond trappings. Everything about that movie just clicks.

Helfenstein:On Her Majesty’s Secret Service: the only Bond film that deserves the term masterpiece. Sumptuous scenery, hyper-kinetic action, a diabolical villain, an ethereal Diana Rigg, and a cocky Bond devastated by a gut punch of a tragic ending. Ian Fleming’s world perfectly captured on film.

O’Connell:On Her Majesty’s Secret Service. Obviously Goldfinger and From Russia With Love are the golden standards, the templates which saw the Bond movies carved forever on the tree of popular culture. But Secret Service proved the series could be both franchise and individual episode. It also demonstrated how it could recast, regenerate and survive. It is a Bond film where everyone – the designers, songsmiths, directors, stunt teams and editors – are at the peak of their game. It also, of course, gave some soul and even lyricism to the 007 project. James Bond may not want to let us into his emotions but the James Bond films can. And to achieve all of this as the suited hero was fleeing out of fashion is another tick in its favor.

Pfeiffer: My favorite Bond film is On Her Majesty’s Secret Service… beautifully scripted and featuring bold direction by Peter Hunt plus what is arguably John Barry’s best score. I also think George Lazenby did a terrific job, given the fact he had no acting experience.

Rubin: Ironically, Goldfinger was the first Bond movie I ever saw and I still consider it the best. In pure tone, excitement and humor, it had all the right touches. A truly perfect Bond film.

Scivally: My favorite James Bond movies are the two that involve the least gadgetry and are the closest in spirit to the Ian Fleming books they’re based on: From Russia With Love and On Her Majesty’s Secret Service. From Russia With Love has a superb cast and feels more like an espionage thriller than a comic book spy adventure, while On Her Majesty’s Secret Service presents George Lazenby’s more vulnerable interpretation of Bond, has a terrific ski chase sequence, and features Diana Rigg as Traci di Vicenzo, the only woman able to get Bond to commit to marriage (although his pending nuptials don’t keep him from taking advantage of the crumpet at Piz Gloria!). That said, I think Goldfinger is an immensely entertaining film that still holds up beautifully nearly fifty years after its release, and defined the James Bond formula for most of the films that followed.

Worrall: Impossible to say. Depends what mood I’m in. On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, Casino Royale, Goldfinger, You Only Live Twice and Skyfall are in my top five.

Coate: And, finally, do you think we will live to see an era where there are no more James Bond movies?

Burlingame: Not in our lifetimes. The fact that Skyfall made $1 billion worldwide only suggests that filmgoers’ appetite for Daniel Craig, and prominent filmmakers tackling Bond stories, hasn’t diminished at all. I see the franchise continuing for decades, very likely with a new generation of Broccolis at the helm.

Cork: That question is far above my pay grade. In 1962/3, no one could have seen where Bond would go. I have no clue what the next fifty years will bring!

Desowitz: No, I think Bond is in good hands with Michael Wilson and Barbara Broccoli, and when the time comes, the mantle will be properly handed down. And the franchise is too much of a moneymaker for the industry to let it die. And there will always be a fan base to keep Bond alive.

Duncan: Bond is a pure wish fulfillment character. All the men want to be like Bond, and all the women want and desire Bond. Bond lives life to the full – he enjoys the sensuality of food and women, and revels in the tension of gambling and racing fast cars – because his dangerous job means that each day could be his last. Characters who are unambiguous about their course in life are very attractive. We would all like to live life to the full like James Bond, so I see no reason why Eon should stop making movies about him and his adventures.

Helfenstein: If I have to resort to making them with action figures, there will always be James Bond movies.

O’Connell: Only if hell freezes over. Which will then make a superb location for a Bond film. So – no – evolution won’t actually let that happen! Of course it would be naïve to assume they will last forever (and I have had that selfish thought, “but what if I die and the films continue… ?!”). I don’t think Eon and the Bond camp look too far ahead. They never take anything for granted. Even talking to Barbara Broccoli on the eve of Skyfall’s release suggested an understandably guarded stance on assuming success and jumping the gun on any future plans. The best hope for Bond’s future is perhaps evidenced in the past and present of how these films are made. Who learns the ropes on them, who understands those vital notions of integrity, character and Fleming… it all strengthens the generations holding up this franchise. That is its best hope of continuing.

Pfeiffer: As I’ve written before, the only constants in life are “death, taxes and the next James Bond movie.”

Rubin: There are only three things certain in life – death, taxes and the James Bond movies. I will guarantee that. James Bond is forever.

Scivally: I think it is inevitable that the series will eventually run its course, but I believe that time is a long, long ways off. So far, the Bond producers have managed to keep the series both popular and profitable. As long as that remains the case, the movies will continue to be produced.

Worrall: Depends on how old you are! I reckon, if Eon persuade Chris Nolan to direct Bond 25, which would be Craig’s fifth, and possible last outing, they might sell-out and retire like Lucas did with his Star Wars franchise. Without Barbara and Michael at the helm I do not think the series could continue in the same vein that we have become used to.